On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:15:52PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 21/11/2019 18:50, Wei Liu wrote: > > Also replace xen_guest with running_on_hypervisor boolean. > > I agree with dropping xen_guest, but... > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <li...@microsoft.com> > > --- > > Changes in v4: > > 1. Access ->name directly. > > 2. Drop Roger's review tag. > > --- > > xen/arch/x86/setup.c | 7 +++++-- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c > > index 19606d909b..123436b35a 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/setup.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/setup.c > > @@ -689,6 +689,7 @@ void __init noreturn __start_xen(unsigned long mbi_p) > > int i, j, e820_warn = 0, bytes = 0; > > bool acpi_boot_table_init_done = false, relocated = false; > > int ret; > > + bool running_on_hypervisor; > > ... this is semantically ambiguous with cpu_has_hypervisor. > > Where they differ is whether Xen has managed to recognise the hypervisor > it is running under, or not. > > Given that the hypervisor_*() hooks are nops by default, I'd suggest > just making blind calls.
Well Jan asked to drop the hypervisor_name hook. I can't make blind calls here. He's unhappy with calling hypervisor_probe twice either. I can, however, do the following: 1. Change hypervisor_probe to return NULL or a string 2. Cache and use that return value inside this function This should make both of you happy. Wei. > > ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
